at the end of the day, its wrong to generalize. it was different for different underdogs and different favorites depending on the teams involved. inter and chelsea were both underdogs when they won it. bayern won it as a favorite but it was more difficult for us to win it and easier for chelsea to wi theirs vs bayern for example.
Yeah generalizing is pretty bad but it stands out to me so much that I feel I could! Of course there has been favorite winners and underdog winners but I'm not talking about the history of the CL/European cup, I'm talking say the start of the millennium where Media have risen so significantly that it affects the modern players like in never had before.
the reason the favorite doesnt always win it over another team is because of the nature of the moniker and the nature of cup comps. having the best players doesnt mean you'll have a balanced team (which has nearly always been a problem with real under florentino perez), and even if you have the right combination doesnt necessarily mean you will have strong enough of a mentality to be the best team (milan 2005, barca post 2011) or that you will have enough luck (juve 2003).
Are you suggesting that cup competitions have these variations because of its
short format? If so then I beg to differ. Yes luck could have a bigger of an affect in a shorter period of time compared to the long season of domestic football. However, the CL have higher quality of opponents and thus the pressure is
tenfold. Playing relatively strong teams 10 weeks out of 38 does not come close to playing tough oppositions in a two-legged match(es) in a knock out stage. You can't seriously say that the pressure is not extremely heavier in the latter?
i think what you're saying has more to do with the argument that its more difficult to build a winning team at real than somewhere else. true, at real there are pressures that interfere with building a winning team, yes, and they can make it difficult to build a winning mentality there vs other clubs. real (and the usual favorites) are typically competing for everything every year so its difficult to consistently be as competitive as inter who only had one chance to win the title. or to have a winning mentality that doesnt fizzle out after you win trophies. with the case of real, the galactico shit made it difficult to build a balanced team. mou even got shit when he won against barca because winning without dominating an attacking game on their opponent was laughably seen as not good enough for madrid etc.
Hmmm good point but I disagree, it does not have anything to do with building a dynasty as I believe building a consistent winning team has more to do with the structure of the
club itself more so than the players/coach. All the great teams (Pep's Barca and onward, Milan's 90s team, Bayern's 70s) were carefully planned by the management of said clubs, from the style they play to the policy of the recruitment of players to who's the perfect fit to manage these players and so on.
I think my original argument has more to do with Attack vs Defense. As favorites are most frequently the attackers (aggressors) and the underdogs the defenders. Its like that in most sports too, Basketball, Boxing, Tennis and Football. The talented attacking force are almost always the favorites.
just because there are pressures though doesnt mean its easier at inter because we had our share of difficulties in building a team that won everything. we didnt have the resources to buy top players and we didnt challenge at that level before for our players not to choke. we had a lot of experienced players though and i do think it was easier for mou but that doesnt mean a team with less quality has a natural advantage over others to challenge for champions league.
You just said that it was easier for Mou and that's my whole point, as a manager it is easier (but in no way fuckin easy) to have a group of players who are considered inferior to the other team to motivate. On the other hand, having a favorite squad makes it tougher for a manager to
motivate his players. And that's my point. I'm not saying that it's easier on the players. On the contrary because you could easily make the point that favorite teams have a more skilled base of players but the underdog does not equal them in that department so they have to work harder. Whereas the favorites also work hard in addition to having the talent to boost.
Our treble winning team was a case of right place at the right time, you can't tell me with a straight face that the management of the club were planning for that to happen? Or even anticipated it in the slightest? It was not an objective.
even if he heard my opinions about him he probably wouldn't give a shit.
